The Covenants Of Mohammed
- Thread starter J7
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Well you are working on the presupposition that Islam is not mentioned in the Bible.
I am not here to argue Islam's case, but furthermore we do as Christ's brothers and sisters have an obligation to be truthful, something woefully absent in a lot of discussions on this forum, and therefore we need also to be factual. I don't particularly want to be referring to the Koran, but if people post silly misrepresentations of Islam, then a necessity arises to correct them.
If you don't feel able to discuss this stuff, it is better not to contribute LM1
I am not here to argue Islam's case, but furthermore we do as Christ's brothers and sisters have an obligation to be truthful, something woefully absent in a lot of discussions on this forum, and therefore we need also to be factual. I don't particularly want to be referring to the Koran, but if people post silly misrepresentations of Islam, then a necessity arises to correct them.
If you don't feel able to discuss this stuff, it is better not to contribute LM1
Last edited:
F
I agree with you completely. There is a great deception and a great push from people who are trying to promote Islam as a safe religion. These are the same people that would have us believe that Islam, Christianity and Judaism all worship the same God, to which I reply, if your God did not take on flesh, die on a cross for the sins of the world and rise from the dead, then how can we be worshipping the same God? I was merely trying to state that no matter what they are trying to promote Islam as, it is a false religion.
Mohammed was a violent man and I cannot bring myself to agree with you that if he was for Christians he is for Christ. Those who believe in the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are for Christ, something to which Islam is completely opposed.
"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matthew 12:30)
"Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son.' preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of the Mercy to beget one." Qur'an 19:88.
Only one of the verses where the prophet clearly denies Christ. The only god that Mohammed was an agent of was an agent of the god of this world, Satan. 2 Corinthians 11:14 warns us that even Satan masquerades as an agent of light. Just something to consider.
Mohammed was a violent man and I cannot bring myself to agree with you that if he was for Christians he is for Christ. Those who believe in the birth, death and resurrection of Christ are for Christ, something to which Islam is completely opposed.
"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." (Matthew 12:30)
"Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son.' preach a monstrous falsehood, at which the very heavens might crack, the earth break asunder, and the mountains crumble to dust. That they should ascribe a son to the Merciful, when it does not become the Lord of the Mercy to beget one." Qur'an 19:88.
Only one of the verses where the prophet clearly denies Christ. The only god that Mohammed was an agent of was an agent of the god of this world, Satan. 2 Corinthians 11:14 warns us that even Satan masquerades as an agent of light. Just something to consider.
A Tale of Two Holy Cities
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/14272.2.0.0/religion/a-tale-of-two-holy-cities
https://www.thetrumpet.com/article/14272.2.0.0/religion/a-tale-of-two-holy-cities
K
So are you saying the Quran that we know today is wrong? Because you do know what it says about Jews and Christians and that they are infidels. You know the verses that say kill them wherever you find them. You know what history says about Muhammad and that he was violent and murdered and took an underage bride. Now all of this is truth,we know it from history. So I don't know the source of your article,I skimmed it briefly. But that seems to be at serious odds with history,which is factual.
K
This is not a site I take articles from often,but once in a while there is a good one.Im going to post the part article for all to read because I believe this is an important subject and Christians are either being deceived or people are trying to deceive Christians into believing Islam is a good and peaceful religion.Which it has never been nor ever will be.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2013/12/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad/
In his new work “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad” John Andrew Morrow offers both an argument for re-envisioning Islam’s relationship with non-Muslims, and an unfortunate measure of conceptual confusion. The latter greatly detracts from the popular and scholarly value of this volume, because authentic dialogue must be grounded in historical truth rather than idealizations and wishful thinking.
The argument of this is based around six “covenants” purportedly made by Muhammad with different Christian groups. In the second section of the book these are offered with both text and translation – an undoubted contribution to available literature in English. In the first and third section of the book Morrow offers a detailed account of the evidence for the authenticity of these documents. This he reiterates in the third part along with his analysis of their meaning.
It would take longer than this short blog to underline all of the problems with his arguments that these documents originate with Muhammad, but perhaps the Covenant with the Monks of Mount Sinai will provide an example. The earliest documentary evidence, or even account of this covenant comes from 800 years after the time of the Prophet. And it posits a visit to Sinai by the Prophet during a period for which even the most elaborate biographies of the Prophet offer no information. Most importantly, Morrow completely ignores the fact that the document first comes to light at a time when it was greatly in the self-interest of the monks to produce a document insuring the protection of their institution by a new form of imperial Islam. In short, despite his detailed accounts of the document and its appearance, and his argument that such a document could have existed, he offers no evidence whatsoever that known copies are authentic, or that the original ever existed.
The same can be said for every other document that Morrow offers.
Morrow dismisses such arguments against the authenticity of these documents as “the hermeneutics of suspicion” by those who intend ill for Muslim relations with non-Muslims. But this is no more an argument than it would be to accuse him of being naively driven by his own ideological commitments – very adequately and fully expressed on page 63. According to Morrow Imam Khomeini and the Hizubullah of Lebanon are models of inter-religious understanding while “the greatest periods of intolerance have concided with Western imperialist occupation.
And here we have the essential problem with Morrow’s effort. Every document or narrative that casts Muslim treatment of non-Muslims in a positive light is taken at face value, and every effort is made to demonstrate the possibility that it is authentic, while all documented evil treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims is regarded as an exception to the rule. On the other hand for Morrow every atrocity committed by Western Christians marks the rule, while any contradictory accounts mark the exception.
Arguments in this form, which riddle the literature on Christian-Muslim relations on both sides, ultimately undermine all efforts at establishing meaningful dialogue because you cannot build a house of truth on a foundation of fatuous self-congratulation.
Muslims and non-Muslims have treated each other with both sacrificial kindness and abominable hatred, and both have been done in the name religion. That is about all one can meaningfully say about the history of inter-religious relations. Everything else is propaganda designed to influence present behavior for better or worse.
And in any case, what are the chances that any Muslim, including those who endorse this book, will give these documents, completely unattested by proper isnad, the status of even the weakest hadith? None. So they will remain to the Muslim community historical curiosities with no religious authority whatsoever.
There is no proof that these articles ever existed. As the author said, its wishful thinking. There is a period of time where scholars believe that history is true and legends have not changed the facts,800 yrs is too far a gap to believe that these "covenants" are true. Now I believe Muslims can be saved, very difficult because they are brain washed from childhood. But Islam has nothing to do with the Bible in the way you are trying to shine light on J7. Islam is not the restrainer and you are murdering Scripture to get there. Again, Muhammad tried to convert and when that didn't work he became angry and then spread his religion by the sword. Christians and Jews were slaughtered and Muhammad did this within his lifetime. He was a murder and a child molester. The facts of history bears this out.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2013/12/the-covenants-of-the-prophet-muhammad/
In his new work “The Covenants of the Prophet Muhammad” John Andrew Morrow offers both an argument for re-envisioning Islam’s relationship with non-Muslims, and an unfortunate measure of conceptual confusion. The latter greatly detracts from the popular and scholarly value of this volume, because authentic dialogue must be grounded in historical truth rather than idealizations and wishful thinking.
The argument of this is based around six “covenants” purportedly made by Muhammad with different Christian groups. In the second section of the book these are offered with both text and translation – an undoubted contribution to available literature in English. In the first and third section of the book Morrow offers a detailed account of the evidence for the authenticity of these documents. This he reiterates in the third part along with his analysis of their meaning.
It would take longer than this short blog to underline all of the problems with his arguments that these documents originate with Muhammad, but perhaps the Covenant with the Monks of Mount Sinai will provide an example. The earliest documentary evidence, or even account of this covenant comes from 800 years after the time of the Prophet. And it posits a visit to Sinai by the Prophet during a period for which even the most elaborate biographies of the Prophet offer no information. Most importantly, Morrow completely ignores the fact that the document first comes to light at a time when it was greatly in the self-interest of the monks to produce a document insuring the protection of their institution by a new form of imperial Islam. In short, despite his detailed accounts of the document and its appearance, and his argument that such a document could have existed, he offers no evidence whatsoever that known copies are authentic, or that the original ever existed.
The same can be said for every other document that Morrow offers.
Morrow dismisses such arguments against the authenticity of these documents as “the hermeneutics of suspicion” by those who intend ill for Muslim relations with non-Muslims. But this is no more an argument than it would be to accuse him of being naively driven by his own ideological commitments – very adequately and fully expressed on page 63. According to Morrow Imam Khomeini and the Hizubullah of Lebanon are models of inter-religious understanding while “the greatest periods of intolerance have concided with Western imperialist occupation.
And here we have the essential problem with Morrow’s effort. Every document or narrative that casts Muslim treatment of non-Muslims in a positive light is taken at face value, and every effort is made to demonstrate the possibility that it is authentic, while all documented evil treatment of non-Muslims by Muslims is regarded as an exception to the rule. On the other hand for Morrow every atrocity committed by Western Christians marks the rule, while any contradictory accounts mark the exception.
Arguments in this form, which riddle the literature on Christian-Muslim relations on both sides, ultimately undermine all efforts at establishing meaningful dialogue because you cannot build a house of truth on a foundation of fatuous self-congratulation.
Muslims and non-Muslims have treated each other with both sacrificial kindness and abominable hatred, and both have been done in the name religion. That is about all one can meaningfully say about the history of inter-religious relations. Everything else is propaganda designed to influence present behavior for better or worse.
And in any case, what are the chances that any Muslim, including those who endorse this book, will give these documents, completely unattested by proper isnad, the status of even the weakest hadith? None. So they will remain to the Muslim community historical curiosities with no religious authority whatsoever.
There is no proof that these articles ever existed. As the author said, its wishful thinking. There is a period of time where scholars believe that history is true and legends have not changed the facts,800 yrs is too far a gap to believe that these "covenants" are true. Now I believe Muslims can be saved, very difficult because they are brain washed from childhood. But Islam has nothing to do with the Bible in the way you are trying to shine light on J7. Islam is not the restrainer and you are murdering Scripture to get there. Again, Muhammad tried to convert and when that didn't work he became angry and then spread his religion by the sword. Christians and Jews were slaughtered and Muhammad did this within his lifetime. He was a murder and a child molester. The facts of history bears this out.
Oh, it's very much scriptual. Have you not read how "all nations" will come against her to destroy her, and the the Lord Himself will defend her?
And while it may in fact be ludicrous, it is no secret in the world that both Shiite and Sunni wish to exterminate that nation.
Maybe you live under a rock, with poor ambient light for reading... ? But somehow you are able to post on the internet. I don't understand how you can't know these things
And while it may in fact be ludicrous, it is no secret in the world that both Shiite and Sunni wish to exterminate that nation.
Maybe you live under a rock, with poor ambient light for reading... ? But somehow you are able to post on the internet. I don't understand how you can't know these things
K
Here,another interesting article on the "covenants". Forgive me for the long posts but I want to address J7,your point of saying Christians are misrepresenting Islam. Taken from the following,
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/robert-spencer-in-pj-lifestyle-the-hypocrisy-of-the-huffington-posts-praise-of-muhammad
[FONT="]The Huffington Post has published yet another article extolling the virtues of the orthodox Christian view of Jesus Christ – no, of course I am not serious. The Huffington Post would never publish something as right wing and sectarian as that. No, what the HuffPo has published is another in a long string of articles in praise of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, who is a much more palatable figure to the American Left.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The latest, “What Studying Muhammad Taught Me About Islam,” published in the HuffPo last week, is as risible as Karen Armstrong’s likening Muhammad to Gandhi, and is as gracefully written as a seventh grader’s book report. But for the Huffington Post, accuracy and quality are of no import: if it downplays the grim reality of Islamic jihad terror, then it’s good enough for them.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The author of the piece is Craig Considine, who has previously likened Muhammad to George Washington and claimed that Christianity has a concept of jihad just like Islam’s. He pulls off these feats of legerdemain by employing a very simple method: ignoring what doesn’t fit his thesis, as he does here.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“In this short essay,” says Considine in his irredeemably clunky prose, “I want to share with you what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam. Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for minorities to have protection during times of strife.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]That is fanciful enough, but Considine plows on:[/FONT]
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/01/robert-spencer-in-pj-lifestyle-the-hypocrisy-of-the-huffington-posts-praise-of-muhammad
[FONT="]The Huffington Post has published yet another article extolling the virtues of the orthodox Christian view of Jesus Christ – no, of course I am not serious. The Huffington Post would never publish something as right wing and sectarian as that. No, what the HuffPo has published is another in a long string of articles in praise of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, who is a much more palatable figure to the American Left.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The latest, “What Studying Muhammad Taught Me About Islam,” published in the HuffPo last week, is as risible as Karen Armstrong’s likening Muhammad to Gandhi, and is as gracefully written as a seventh grader’s book report. But for the Huffington Post, accuracy and quality are of no import: if it downplays the grim reality of Islamic jihad terror, then it’s good enough for them.[/FONT]
[FONT="]The author of the piece is Craig Considine, who has previously likened Muhammad to George Washington and claimed that Christianity has a concept of jihad just like Islam’s. He pulls off these feats of legerdemain by employing a very simple method: ignoring what doesn’t fit his thesis, as he does here.[/FONT]
[FONT="]“In this short essay,” says Considine in his irredeemably clunky prose, “I want to share with you what I have learned about Muhammad and how his legacy informs my understanding of Islam. Muhammad’s beliefs on how to treat religious minorities make him a universal champion of human rights, particularly as it pertains to freedom of conscience, freedom of worship, and the right for minorities to have protection during times of strife.”
[/FONT]
[FONT="]That is fanciful enough, but Considine plows on:[/FONT]
“Muhammad initiated many legal covenants with Christians and Jews after establishing his Muslim community. For example, in one covenant with the Christian monks at Mount Sinai, Egypt, Muhammad called on Muslims to respect Christian judges and churches, and for no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister. Through this agreement, Muhammad made it clear that Islam, as a political and philosophical way of life, respected and protected Christians.”
The document to which Considine is referring, the Achtiname, is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command for, as Considine puts it, “no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister”? Did Muhammad draw up this document because he foresaw the Muslim invasion of Egypt? There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).
The document exempts the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery from paying the jizya. While it is conceivable that Muhammad, believing he bore the authority of Allah, would exempt them from an obligation specified by Allah himself in the Qur’an (9:29), the Achtiname specifies that Christians of Egypt are to pay a jizya only of twelve drachmas.
Yet according to the seventh-century Coptic bishop John of Nikiou, Christians in Egypt “came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month.”
The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims.
Considine doesn’t mention any of the questions about the Achtiname’s authenticity. Instead, he just piles on more:
Considine then goes on to claim that Muhammad “fought against racism long before the days of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.” He says, with his inimitable gift for imitating a seventh-grader’s peroration, that “Muhammad’s final sermon informed me that Islam teaches Muslims to be tolerant of difference and welcome to diversity.”
Yet all too many Arab Muslims have lorded it over non-Arab Muslims throughout Islamic history, and some do today. Why are there so many who misunderstand Muhammad’s clear words here? Perhaps because Muhammad is also said to have declared: “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”
The document to which Considine is referring, the Achtiname, is of even more doubtful authenticity than everything else about Muhammad’s life. Muhammad is supposed to have died in 632; the Muslims conquered Egypt between 639 and 641. The document says of the Christians, “No one shall bear arms against them.” So were the conquerors transgressing against Muhammad’s command for, as Considine puts it, “no Muslim to fight against his Christian brother or sister”? Did Muhammad draw up this document because he foresaw the Muslim invasion of Egypt? There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a).
The document exempts the monks of St. Catherine’s monastery from paying the jizya. While it is conceivable that Muhammad, believing he bore the authority of Allah, would exempt them from an obligation specified by Allah himself in the Qur’an (9:29), the Achtiname specifies that Christians of Egypt are to pay a jizya only of twelve drachmas.
Yet according to the seventh-century Coptic bishop John of Nikiou, Christians in Egypt “came to the point of offering their children in exchange for the enormous sums that they had to pay each month.”
The Achtiname, in short, bears all the earmarks of being an early medieval Christian forgery, perhaps developed by the monks themselves in order to protect the monastery and Egyptian Christians from the depredations of zealous Muslims.
Considine doesn’t mention any of the questions about the Achtiname’s authenticity. Instead, he just piles on more:
Similarly, in the Treaty of Maqnah, the Prophet stated Jews “may be in peace… you are in security [under Muhammad’s rule]… Towards you is no wrong and no enmity. After today you will not be subject to oppression or violence.” In the Constitution of Medina, a key document which laid out a societal vision for Muslims, Muhammad also singled out Jews, who, he wrote, “shall maintain their own religion and the Muslim theirs… The close friends of Jews are as themselves.” In safeguarding the rights of Jews, Muhammad made it clear that a citizen of an Islamic state did not have to follow Islam and that Muslims should treat Jews as they would their own friends. In developing these agreements with his fellow Muslims, Christians, and Jews, Muhammad clearly rejected elitism and racism and demanded that Muslims see their Abrahamic brothers and sisters as equals before God.
Here again, both the Treaty of Maqnah and the Constitution of Medina are of doubtful authenticity. The Constitution is first mentioned in Ibn Ishaq’s biography of Muhammad, which was written over 125 years after the accepted date for Muhammad’s death. Unfortunately for Considine, Ibn Ishaq also details what happened to three Jewish tribes of Arabia after the Constitution of Medina: Muhammad exiled the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, massacred the Banu Qurayza after they (understandably) made a pact with his enemies during the pagan Meccans’ siege of Medina, and then massacred the exiles at the Khaybar oasis, giving Muslims even today a bloodthirsty war chant: “Khaybar, Khaybar, O Jews, the army of Muhammad will return.” Funny how we never hear Muslims chanting, “Relax, relax, O Jews, the Constitution of Medina will return.”
Considine then goes on to claim that Muhammad “fought against racism long before the days of Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.” He says, with his inimitable gift for imitating a seventh-grader’s peroration, that “Muhammad’s final sermon informed me that Islam teaches Muslims to be tolerant of difference and welcome to diversity.”
Yet all too many Arab Muslims have lorded it over non-Arab Muslims throughout Islamic history, and some do today. Why are there so many who misunderstand Muhammad’s clear words here? Perhaps because Muhammad is also said to have declared: “Allah has chosen the Arabs above others”
K
Post 62 - "but furthermore we do as Christ's brothers and sisters have an obligation to be truthful, something woefully absent in a lot of discussions on this forum, and therefore we need also to be factual. I don't particularly want to be referring to the Koran, but if people post silly misrepresentations of Islam, then a necessity arises to correct them."
K
Your quote " To say he was a pagan is a bit silly. Judaism and Islam don't really slot sensibly into paganism as they recognise The God of Abraham."
If you're here to push Islam you'll soon find yourself banned. Islam does not believe in the God of Abraham. Islam is pagan and believes in their own god,allah,a false god. If you persist on pushing Islam you will be reported. This is a Christian site.
If you're here to push Islam you'll soon find yourself banned. Islam does not believe in the God of Abraham. Islam is pagan and believes in their own god,allah,a false god. If you persist on pushing Islam you will be reported. This is a Christian site.